Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Kate Green

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Nic Dakin]

I will withdraw the amendment but I would like to thank my hon. Friends for their support and for the helpful comments from the Government Benches, including the Minister’s recognition that this issue needs to be grappled with. I welcome her commitment, in the course of her roundtable meetings, to meet these groups so that the issues can be properly explored with the cancer community.

I also welcome her comments in the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that she is confident that at an appropriate time an immigration Bill will come forward to deal with these issues more comprehensively. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Kate Green]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5A) Any regulations issued under subsection (1) which enable children of EEA or Swiss nationals to be removed from the United Kingdom must include—

(a) a requirement to obtain an individual Best Interests Assessment before a decision is made to remove the child; and

(b) a requirement to obtain a Best Interest Assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by a decision to remove.

(5B) The assessment under subsection (5A) must cover, but is not limited to—

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his or her age and understanding);

(b) the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effects, including psychological effects, on the child of the removal;

(d) the child’s age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child the assessor considers relevant;

(e) any harm which the child is at risk of suffering if the removal takes place;

(f) how capable the parent facing removal with the child, and any other person in relation to whom the assessor considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his or her needs;

(g) the citizenship rights of the child including whether they may be stateless and have rights to British citizenship.

(5C) The assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional.

(5D) Psychological or psychiatric assessments must be obtained in appropriate cases.

(5E) The results of the assessment must be recorded in a written plan for the child.”

This amendment would ensure that before a decision is taken to remove an EEA or Swiss national child from the UK a comprehensive best interest assessment is obtained.

Vocational Qualifications Day

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Kate Green

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right that further education has been a Cinderella area of education and training. One reason why I applaud Vocational Qualifications Day is that it represents a real effort to rebalance what we are saying out there, and what is being said back to us. It is important that we seize that with both hands.

Careers advice is an area in which the Government need to up their game. We have a new careers and enterprise company in place, but it is not clear—the Minister might tell us that it is crystal clear—exactly what that company is doing, or how it will address the current deficit that means that whereas 63% of young people can name A-levels as a post-GCSE qualification, only 7% can name apprenticeships and only 26% are able to name national vocational qualifications as post-GCSE qualifications. Despite the plug that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) gave for BTECs, only 19% of pupils were able to name them. When I was a college principal, I expanded the BTEC curriculum within my college because it acts as a very good bridge between the academic and the vocational. That applied learning is the sort of bridge we need in order for people to develop and move on to both vocational and academic pathways, as he described.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of careers advice in raising young people’s awareness of alternative education and qualification routes, but will he say something about what can be done better to inform parents? Parents influence their children’s choices, and many parents assume that a university education is the best and only suitable option for their children.

[Nic Dakin]

Absolutely. That is where there is a real danger in the fragmentation of schools, academies, UTCs and other provision. Sadly, the evidence is that in schools with their own sixth form, the quality of careers education, as regards raising awareness of the various pathways available, is lower than in schools that do not have their own sixth form. We must ensure that impartial advice is available to all young people, wherever they undertake their secondary education. That includes connecting better with parents and ensuring that they get information about the range of available pathways from the secondary school, which is the main vehicle through which they receive such information. Research commissioned by the Association of Colleges shows that only 14% of 11 to 16-year-olds have heard of apprenticeships, which is just not good enough. That is evidence that, collectively, we all need to up our game.

The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned LEPs, which are well placed to maximise the value of careers education locally. They seem to be the other player in the mix, with a good connection with the worlds of work and education. LEPs are in an opportune place to bring those things together. Given that LEPs are becoming more mature as organisations, any opportunity to allow them to show more leadership with regards to careers information, advice and guidance would probably benefit young people in their area. I commend Humber local enterprise partnership for its work in promoting gold standard awards for quality in careers information, advice and guidance in the Humber area. It is an example of good practice.

The adult skills budget is disappointing. Vocational qualifications are not just for younger people; they are for older people, particularly because many people will lose one job and have to retrain for another. Given that people are living longer, that is likely to be a challenge for older as well as younger people. It is disappointing that the adult skills budget was cut by 24% in February 2015, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said earlier. It is equally disappointing that just last week, further cuts were announced of £450 million to the non-schools budget and £450 million to the further and higher education part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills budget.

Those cuts will cause challenges and pressures, particularly if there are retrospective funding cuts. As a former principal of a college, I know what it is like to set out my stall and put my plans in place. If schools are told halfway through the year that they need to save more money, it is difficult to do so, even for the best-run organisations. I have concerns about the impact on providing the better vocational education and better pathways that we all want for young people, as well as better understanding and support for older people retraining. We might accidentally achieve the opposite. I know that the Minister is passionately committed to ensuring that this works, and I am sure that he did not decide to decrease funding in certain areas to benefit the bit of the world that he champions. I am sure that he will take away from this debate the desire to bat even harder in private for the people whom we want to deliver well for us in public: that is, young people coming into the workplace, as well as older people needing retraining. For both those groups, vocational qualifications are a key underpinning of bridges and platforms into the future.

Claims Management Companies

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Kate Green

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We have a situation in which claims management companies can never lose, however vexatious the claims they pursue, while businesses targeted by those companies always lose. She is right: it is time to balance the risk in a different way.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has initiated this debate. Does he agree that some of the Government’s policies that will mean people are no longer able to access lawyers—the fast-track small claims procedure, for example—will mean that claims management companies are able to expand their businesses? People will not be able to go it alone, but neither will they be able to access proper legal advice?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend draws attention to a very real danger in the current changes.

In his letter to me, Mr Broadbent drew attention to the following unsatisfactory way in which the FOS acted. After downloading the FOS standard PPI claim form, a client completed it. He answered the questions honestly in the form of tick boxes, and stated that he did not recall the sale process. The claim was declined, yet nine months later a CMC made the same complaint on behalf of the same client. In this case all the boxes were ticked, stating that the client had a clear recollection of the sales process and how the product was mis-sold. That was not considered a vexatious complaint and it is being considered by the FOS. It says that it must ignore the original complaint and review it on the basis of the claim submitted by the CMC. That will not strike anyone as a sensible, fair or efficient way to proceed.

The FOS does good work resolving disputes in many areas, but its ability to deal appropriately with PPI disputes is compromised by the sheer volume of complaints it receives. Last year, complaints about PPI made up 60% of all complaints dealt with by the FOS, yet CMCs made no contribution to the running costs of the FOS. Greater control over CMCs, and a system where they will be charged for making unsuccessful claims, would help free up the FOS to deal more effectively with other matters in its inbox.

The Ministry of Justice is to be applauded for making some headway in its control of CMCs, but there is more to do. The ban on referrals in personal injury cases, which is due to come into force in April, will hopefully reduce harassment of members of the public who have been involved in accidents. The flipside of that is that claims management companies may focus more on PPI claims and look to diversify into new areas of vexatious claiming. Indeed, there is already some evidence that they are turning their attention to mortgages.

The Financial Services Authority acknowledges that there has been no wholesale mis-selling of mortgages, yet some claims management companies are already sending template letters to businesses, claiming that mortgages were mis-sold. The letters are easily produced but take a lot of time to answer—sometimes as long as 10 or 12 hours—because of the complexity of the mortgages.

The claims management regulator set up by the Ministry of Justice regularly shuts down CMCs that deliberately submit vexatious claims, but the number of claims companies is too high for the regulator to keep up. The number of companies is rising—it has doubled in the past two years to more than 3,000. The competition between them results in more vexatious claims and ever more aggressive tactics. In the years 2011-12, the regulator undertook only 150 visits and audits of firms, which is fewer than 5% of authorised CMCs.

I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a number of questions in her reply. Does she support the call of Which? for improved regulation of CMCs? Will she take steps to ban cold calling and cold texting? Will she take action to ensure that, in any advertisement, CMCs make clear to the client the benefit of their taking their claim directly, without intermediary, to the FOS? Will she place a duty on CMCs to ensure that the claims they submit contain accurate information? Claims companies should be required to exercise due diligence and must reasonably believe that there is a possibility of a valid claim. They must not be allowed to continue to fish for claims with very little consequence.

CMCs play an influential role in the UK’s compensation and redress regimes. They are responsible for almost half the complaints sent to the FOS, but make no financial contribution to its operating costs of around £107 million. In the light of that, will the Minister explore how CMCs can make a financial contribution to FOS running costs? For example, CMCs could be required to pay the £500 FOS case fee when they have not undertaken adequate checks to ensure there is a policy in place. The FOS dismisses charging for CMCS in “Charging for our work: modernising our case fee arrangements”, saying that charges will be passed on to customers. A simple solution would be to ban the collection of up-front fees and cap the percentage of a claim that a CMC can take. That would prevent their passing on to customers the reasonable charges that I argue should be levied on the industry.

Will the Minister take steps to ensure that CMCs accept leads only from organisations that are also regulated by the claims management regulator, organisations that are exempt introducers, or organisations that are regulated by another body, such as solicitors? There is concern that the FOS is insufficiently independent of the regulator, which is currently the FSA. Can that be scrutinised? Can appropriate action be taken to ensure a clear separation of powers and responsibilities? It seems unreasonable that a business must adhere to the adjudicator’s findings without a right of appeal and with no knowledge of the adjudicator’s qualification for making a decision. Can that be looked at with a view to equalising the playing field?

Finally, can steps be taken to ensure that the Ministry of Justice and the CMR have sufficient powers and capacity properly to regulate the business in a way that is fair to consumers and businesses? After all, we should support businesses such as Mr Broadbent’s. His business lends to other businesses and helps them to expand, fuelling the growth of the economy.

Claims companies are making huge amounts of money and filing huge numbers of claims against whatever businesses they can, regardless of whether they have mis-sold or even sold a PPI. At their worst, CMCs do not help the consumer, and damage businesses and clog up the regulators. Their proliferation must be stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Kate Green

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

8. What progress he has made on his proposed reform of legal aid.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

15. What progress he has made on his proposed reform of legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The consultation for the reform of legal aid closed on 14 February and we have received some 5,000 responses from members of the public, lawyers and their representative bodies, advice providers, charities and many others. We are continuing to review all the representations received and we hope to publish our finalised proposals, which will include plans for implementation, after the Easter recess.

Independent Debt Advice

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Kate Green

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mrs Riordan, that I will have to leave before the debate’s conclusion in order to attend a Public Bill Committee. I am pleased to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I welcome the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the Chamber. Our analyses may differ, but that does not alter the fact that we share a common concern. The reason why we are taking part in this debate and why it is so well attended is to get answers from the Minister to the points so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), whom I congratulate on securing this timely and important debate.

We are in a time of falling growth, rising unemployment and rising prices fuelled by the VAT increase. That may well mean that, notwithstanding the past, more families and people are more likely to get into financial difficulties in the future. They are, therefore, in danger of becoming prey to organisations that take advantage of the financially vulnerable, putting desperate people into a state of greater desperation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has done much already in this Parliament to raise awareness of the need to control the actions of loan sharks. We also need to ensure that accessible, independent debt advice remains available for people so that they can square up their affairs and remain healthy and effective in society. Statistics nationally show that demand for debt advice is already on the increase. Last year, Citizens Advice assisted 580,000 people with £2.4 million-worth of debt problems, which is an increase of 23% on the previous year. In addition, 1.4 million people—one in every 33 UK adults—received advice from charities such as National Debtline.

The financial inclusion fund was deliberately located in areas such as Scunthorpe to meet the needs of communities that had difficulty accessing debt advice. The vision was to create a step change in the availability of face-to-face debt advice services, and Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken so far have insisted upon the importance of those services in addressing the issues. Every year, the FIF debt advice services have directly helped more than 100,000 people nationally to resolve their debt problems. Audits and evaluations show that the services have been effective and well targeted at people who need such advice.

The situation in relation to the provision of independent debt advice in my Scunthorpe county constituency is particularly concerning, and I fear that it is typical of many other parts of the country. Some 200 people a year are currently being supported by FIF debt advice, and many of them have problems or communication needs that require face-to-face support for it to be effective.

An additional problem in the Scunthorpe area is that there is currently no legal service contract for debt advice, which exacerbates the problem for all advice agencies. The previous contract allowed for 400 new matter starts, or cases, per annum. The local firm of solicitors who provide this service tell me that all their clients were referred to them from other agencies, such as the CAB and North Lincolnshire Homes, which do not have the capacity to provide that advice themselves. To its credit, that solicitor’s practice is providing advice on a pro bono basis, but that is clearly not sustainable.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant concern about solicitors providing debt and other forms of advice as part of a package is that the legal aid changes will narrow access to advice, so that it is given only when a family home is at risk? As we know, creditors like to negotiate the whole package of debt together, including mortgage debt and other personal debt. However, that will no longer be possible because we have no single funding stream through which all debt advice can be provided.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Early intervention in providing debt advice saves money, saves homes and saves lives. There is a real danger that the legal aid changes will exacerbate an already difficult problem. I hope that a new contract will be agreed in the Scunthorpe area, but when the contracts expire in 2014, no further debt advice of that sort will be provided locally.